5.  The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  The first, second, third, fourth, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth applicants, and legal predecessor of the fifth, sixth and seventh applicants, were all employees of the Aluminium Plant in Podgorica (Kombinat aluminijuma Podgorica).
7.  On various dates they were all certified as totally unfit for work (potpuni gubitak radne sposobnosti). Their disability (invalidnost) was partly the result of a work-related illness.
8.  Between 10 and 16 November 2005 they were made redundant and received a severance payment.
9.  On various dates thereafter the Pension Fund (Republički fond penzijskog i invalidskog osiguranja) in Podgorica recognised their right to a disability pension (pravo na invalidsku penziju), effective from the date on which they had respectively been certified disabled.
10.  On various subsequent dates the first, second, third, fourth, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth applicants, and legal predecessor of the fifth, sixth and seventh applicants, filed claims against their former employer, seeking damages consisting of the difference between the disability pension they were receiving and the salary which they would have received had they not been made redundant. The amounts claimed varied between 581 euros (EUR) (for the third applicant) and EUR 9,273.64 (for the fourth applicant). They expressly stated, either in their claims or further submissions made in the context of appeals, appeals on points of law and/or replies to the defendant’s submissions, that these were labour-related claims exempted from court fees. The fifth, sixth and seventh applicants continued the proceedings in their legal predecessor’s stead as he had passed away in the meantime.
11.  Some of the applicants were successful before the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Podgorica, while others were not. However, all the applicants were unsuccessful in the second-instance proceedings before the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica, which rendered its decisions between 7 November 2008 and 9 October 2009. The first, third, fourth, eighth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth applicants lodged an appeal on points of law (revizija) with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud) in Podgorica. Between 18 February and 3 December 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgments and, in substance, endorsed its reasoning. The second, fifth, sixth, seventh and ninth applicants did not lodge an appeal on points of law.
12.  In its reasoning in the applicants’ cases, the High Court and the Supreme Court held, inter alia, that the applicants’ employment had been terminated because they had been made redundant, not because their right to a disability pension had been recognised. In particular, when their right to a pension was subsequently recognised they were no longer employed and thus had no salary in any event; accordingly, no damage had been sustained and their claims were unfounded.
13.  In six other judgments, submitted by the applicants, rendered between 7 December 2006 (by the Supreme Court) and 2 February 2009 (by the High Court) the same courts had ruled in favour of the applicants’ colleagues, notwithstanding the fact that their claims were based on the same facts and concerned identical legal issues. In their reasoning in those other cases, the courts explained, inter alia, that the claim for damages was justified on grounds of their disability and that the employer had to compensate them according to the extent to which the work-related illness had caused the disability. At the same time, the courts found that the claimants’ redundancy and the accompanying payment, which the claimants had received, had nothing to do with the legal grounds for seeking damages for their disability. These judgments became final and enforceable (pravosnažne i izvršne).
14.  All the applicants lodged constitutional appeals. On 24 March 2011 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud) rejected (odbacio) the constitutional appeal lodged by the ninth applicant on the grounds that he had not exhausted all effective domestic remedies; in particular, he had not lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. Between 24 December 2009 and 10 March 2011 the Constitutional Court dismissed (odbio) the constitutional appeals lodged by all the other applicants on the grounds that the impugned judgments did not depart from established case-law.